Next Article in Journal
On the Overlooked Diversity of Clause Structures and Argument Structures in Non-Indo-European Languages
Previous Article in Journal
Perceptions of Forms of Address in European Portuguese in Online Metadiscourse or What Happens When You Use você in Court
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Languages
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/languages9040134
languages-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of English Language Proficiency on Local Language Use among Bangladeshi Graduates

by
Md Tarikul Islam
1,
Md. Kamrul Hasan
2,
Selvajothi Ramalingam
1,* and
Kazi Enamul Hoque
3
1
Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
2
Department of English, United International University, Madani Avenue, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
3
Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Languages 2024, 9(4), 134; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9040134
Submission received: 11 July 2023 / Revised: 24 January 2024 / Accepted: 1 March 2024 / Published: 8 April 2024
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to identify the impact of English language proficiency on Bangladeshi graduates in terms of its influence on local languages and cultural integration. The study was conducted using a quantitative approach, and the random sampling technique was employed to select 370 respondents from English and Bengali medium-instructed Bangladeshi graduates. Data were analysed using SPSS version 27.0. The Pearson correlation, ANOVA, and multiple regression analyses were used in line with the research objectives. The Pearson correlation shows a significant correlation among the studied variables, such as cultural erosion (R2 = 047, p < 0.001), threat to local language (R2 = 048, p < 0.001), and polluting local language (R2 = 047, p < 0.001). The ANOVA test was performed to find the mean difference in cultural erosion (CE), threat to local language (TLL), and polluting local language (PLL) with respect to respondents’ qualifications (bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D. degree). The ANOVA result revealed no statistically significant difference in CE and TLL in terms of graduates’ qualifications, while PLL differs significantly based on their qualifications (bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D. degree.). Similarly, significant differences in CE, TLL, and PLL were found among the income groups and living places of graduates. Multiple regression analysis explained 13.6% variances in the social class context with ELP-linked challenges (R2 = 0.136, p = 0.001), while the lower class was found to have positive non-significant relationships with ELP-linked challenges (B = 0. 159, p = 0.382). This was almost double that of the result for the rich class (B = 0.085, p = 0.721). However, ELP-linked challenges contain a mixture of languages and cultural blending in society, as the rich class faces fewer challenges than the lower and middle classes. The study is influential in creating an awareness of language use whenever necessary.

1. Introduction

English is an essential language for Bangladeshi graduates to learn to survive in a competitive environment because graduates’ competitiveness depends on their level of English language skills (Hamid 2016). Language proficiency is considered a ladder to success in life (Afrin and Baines 2020). The trend commenced during the colonial period in this continent; during British rule, people in the elite class were fond of learning the English language (Islam et al. 2022b). Although the British left this continent, they placed the English language among the people of the continent (Rahman et al. 2019). Therefore, the people of this continent maintain the use of the English language in education, judicially, and in many government and private offices (Deumert et al. 2021). The people of this continent depend on other rich countries due to the demand for internationalisation and global business through multinational companies (Bacha et al. 2021).
As Bangladeshis are part of this continent, the country has to follow current trends as graduates try to stay up to date with progress in language and technology (Islam et al. 2022b). In these circumstances, English is essential to empowering graduates to cope with the neoliberal trends in the economy and globalisation (Hamid and Rahman 2019; Kabir and Chowdhury 2021; Sultana 2022). In that sense, learning the language is one kind of capital for Bangladeshi graduates; as French Psychologist Pierre Bourdieu stated, language skills can be used as capital to develop human capital, which can be exchanged for money (Blackledge 1999; Karim et al. 2021; Neveu 2018; Rafi and Morgan 2022). Therefore, the Bangladeshi people are fond of teaching and learning in the English medium, allowing them to cope with the trend of globalisation. This is a consequence of the rapid growth of kindergarten schools around the country (Mousumi and Kusakabe 2021; Shahen et al. 2019). These institutes make it mandatory to speak English at school, resulting in the students’ becoming habituated and practising English at home (Islam et al. 2022b). However, few parents encourage their children to always speak English at home (Amin 2018).
Moreover, 114 private universities offer teaching and learning in English, while few foreign universities operate courses with physical campuses that teach in English (Khan and Sultana 2020). Furthermore, the British Council provides Cambridge University teaching in English and various language-teaching programmes for Bangladeshi people (Rahman and Singh 2020). Similarly, during the last decade, a significant number of students have migrated to Europe, America, Australia, the Middle East, and East Asian countries for higher education, and the institutions of these countries use English as their medium for teaching (Kırkgöz 2019).
This study was conducted in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, because people have migrated from rural areas to urban cities for better education, jobs, and living, resulting in the city becoming a megacity (Islam et al. 2022b). The city is one of the most populated cities in the world, so there is a density of education institutes and graduates, with high competition to secure employment (Yin et al. 2021). Quality education with proficiency in the English language is the one weapon that can be used to survive on the battlefield to secure employment (Niculescu et al. 2019). In addition, the ready-made garments and information and communication technology industries depend on foreign labour in Bangladesh; therefore, English language proficiency in the workforce is required to run and enrich these industries (Roshid 2018; Swazan and Das 2022).
Given the above circumstances, it is evident English is essential to cope with the current trends in education, employment, technology, social media, and many more sectors (Amit et al. 2021; Awal 2022). The people of this country are gradually accepting the language and becoming habituated to the English language in daily life, using it to solve many daily issues (Islam et al. 2022b). On the other hand, the people of this country love their mother tongue more than their lives, and they sacrificed their lives for the sake of their mother tongue in 1952 (Linn et al. 2021). Bangladesh is the only nation in the world where the people sacrificed their lives to protect the mother language (Hamid and Rahman 2019). Consequently, International Mother Language Day on the 21st of February is celebrated around the world (Rahman 2020). In these circumstances, Bengali language-loving people accept the English language in their daily life context, and this attitude is incredible (Qazi et al. 2022). Therefore, this study focuses on identifying the ELP-linked impacts that influence Bangladeshi graduates’ use of English and the threat this poses to the local language and cultural integration in a social setting in Bangladesh.

1.1. Multiple Groups of Bangladeshi Graduates

Based on the language medium of instruction, the Bangladeshi graduates can be segmented into multiple groups: Bengali, English, and Arabic mediums of instruction (Karim et al. 2021). Bengali medium graduates must pass 200 marks in two papers, which is mandatory for all students (Ara 2020). Bengali and Arabic medium-instructed students are comparatively less proficient in English compared to those instructed in an English medium (Jahan and Hamid 2019). Furthermore, the students are taught all subjects in the Bengali language except English, which is taught in both languages because most of the teachers are not fully capable of teaching English by solely using the English language (Rumnaz Imam 2005). Subsequently, the English medium with local syllabus students is taught fully in English (Chowdhury and Kabir 2014). Finally, English-medium students using the Cambridge syllabus through the British Council of Bangladesh are totally in the subtractive English language medium education (Rahman and Pandian 2018; Veitch 2021). However, the participants of this study were taken from Bengali and English language medium graduates from diverse levels of living status in the city.

1.2. English Language Proficiency

A significant variety of English language proficiency exists among Bangladeshi graduates based on their level of education and living status (Akareem and Hossain 2012; Islam et al. 2022b). According to Bangladesh’s socioeconomic background, the country is considered a developing country that has fulfilled several criteria of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) regarding education (Martín et al. 2015). Therefore, many people live in the capital city for education and employment; thus, the study took two groups of graduates based on their education and living status (Kamruzzaman and Hakim 2016). Firstly, ELP strongly varies among the education groups of graduate bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. holders who do not contain the same level of ELP (Islam et al. 2022b). Similarly, the living status groups of graduates hold a variety of ELP due to the nature of the environment (Hamid 2016). Additionally, the ability of ELP depends on the background of the educational institutes where they studied; English language medium students are more efficient in ELP compared to Bengali language medium students (Hamid and Baldauf 2011).
Moreover, a strong influence on graduates occurs when the other family members are educated; the graduates become skilled compared to other families who are not educated (Hamid 2011). Many families in the sophisticated area of the capital city practice the English language at home because the parents are educated, and they have created an English-speaking environment for their children, resulting in the children becoming skilled in English (Islam et al. 2022b). Therefore, the three dimensions work as a factor of ELP development for Bangladeshi graduates: the level of education with language instruction, living status, and family background (Schuller et al. 2004).

1.3. Languages in the Social Setting

More than 98% of the population speaks Bengali in a Bangladeshi social context; on the other hand, more than 30 languages exist in this small country, including Manipuri, Urdu, Chakma, Santali, Garo, Rakhine, and Tipra. (Rumnaz Imam 2005). The exciting thing is that Urdu is an Indo-European language but written in Arabic script; Santali belongs to the Mono Khemar language family, while Chakma belongs to the Chinese Burmese language group (Kachru 2017). Although Bangladesh is often portrayed as a country of linguistic unity based on the Bangla language, in reality, it has notable linguistic diversity (Rumnaz Imam 2005). However, a government law states that government offices must use Bengali in their official works (Hossain and Tollefson 2017). From the government’s point of view, Bengali is the official national language, and English is the most important foreign language (Ara 2020). However, English is the second language of the country, and in many places, English is more important than Bengali because international business and higher education are conducted in the English language (Rumnaz Imam 2005). Furthermore, social media, the internet, and modern technology are mostly operated in the English language (Bakeer 2018). Therefore, due to the influence of social media, the internet, technology, and the medium used in instruction in education, many families use English as their home language (Islam et al. 2022b). However, the scenario is different based on the social classes; the elite class of people commonly use English at home because their children study at English language medium institutes; consequently, this class also uses English in social situations, while the middle and lower classes face different scenarios (Islam et al. 2022b).

1.4. Theory

William Stewart and Heinz Kloss introduced the basic concept of the sociolinguistic theory of pluricentric languages in the 1960s, describing the standard form of language varieties that differ between nations (Swann 2019). The theory also studies how languages differ between groups separated by certain social variables (e.g., ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education, age, and social groups) and how creation and adherence to these rules are used to categorise individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. This study implements the social class part of the theory, where the social groups are segmented according to education and living place. As Chambers (2002) claims, people with the same achievements are used to socialising among themselves, living closely, sharing their attitudes, attaining recreation, and sharing their aims in life. In the Bangladeshi context, the theory copes with the context of the English language used by a diverse group of Bangladeshi graduates.

1.5. Objectives of This Study

The objectives were set to designate the ELP-linked impact level and if any correlation exists among the English language proficiency (ELP)-linked impacts, such as cultural erosion (CE), threat to local language (TLL), polluting local language (PLL), and language use in society. Moreover, it examines how the relationship varies among the graduate groups based on their education, income, living, and social class. The following objectives are formulated for the current study.
  • To understand the level of ELP-linked challenges among Bangladeshi university graduates in relation to language and culture.
  • To find the correlation between the ELP-linked impacts and language use in a social context.
  • To find the mean differences of CE, TLL, and PLL in terms of respondents’ qualifications.
  • To find the mean differences of CE, TLL, and PLL in terms of respondents’ incomes.
  • To find the mean differences of CE, TLL, and PLL in terms of respondents’ living places.
  • To find the relationship between ELP and social class, such as rich, middle, and lower class graduates.

2. Methodology

This study was conducted with a quantitative approach to meet the research gap in the literature since most of the research was conducted qualitatively in the Bangladesh context. The survey and Likert scales were used to meet the demands of the questionnaire. However, the survey was conducted among Bangladeshi university graduates to understand the ELP-linked impact levels on a diverse group of graduates in different social contexts. Table 1 describes the educational level and social context, such as the living places of Bangladeshi university graduates. A total of 370 respondents were randomly chosen from different universities all over the country. According to the UGC Report 2022, there are 52 public and 114 private universities in Bangladesh. Out of 160 universities, 52 universities are situated in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. The universities situated in Dhaka have been chosen as the context of the study because students from different backgrounds study here. The respondents were randomly chosen from all 52 universities. There were 58 respondents from each university. Table 1 describes respondents’ demographic profiles. Non-slum, semi-urban, urban, and sophisticated urban areas in Dhaka were selected as the research locations to obtain different groups of graduates from different social contexts based on their education, income, and living place. The instrument was a questionnaire (“English language proficiency is a threat to mother tongue Bengali, for example, many families do not use Bengali at home” is an item on the survey) with eight sections; the first section was the demography with 12 items and 35 items for the other seven sections. Furthermore, the survey data were collected in face-to-face seating, where the researchers asked the questions and input the answers into a Google form in real-time in order to ensure the concentration of the respondents on the survey. Apart from this, the quantitative data were analysed using Pearson’s correlation, ANOVA, and multivariate regression with SPSS version 26 software, the most recent version on the market.

2.1. Measuring the Social Class Status of the Graduate Households

Measuring the social class status of the graduates’ households by direct and indirect methods appeared to be operationally difficult subdividing social status into different sub-groups, and this is needed to measure the levels of language use in real-life settings, such as differences among distinct social groups (lower and middle classes). However, a single variable, such as education, monthly income, sex of the graduates, etc., is not sufficient to assess a graduate’s household social class status, requiring the construction of an index. In this case, the study collected data on four variables, aiming to compose an index for assessing the social status of the study groups (Table 1). These data showed that the cell frequencies of some variables, such as graduates’ education and living places, were too small for a meaningful analysis. Thus, the study selected three variables, such as graduates’ education, monthly income, and living place standards in Dhaka, for constructing an index of the social class status of the study population.
Therefore, some conditions were used to classify the graduates’ households into the three social status categories shown below:
Working class: Graduates living in semi/peri-urban places of the city area, graduates with a bachelor’s degree (12 years) in education, and with a monthly income of BTk.10,000 or below.
Middle class: Graduates living in normal urban areas of the city area, graduates with a master’s degree of education, and with a monthly income of BTk.11,000 to 20,000.
Rich class: Graduates living in sophisticated urban places of the city area, graduates with Ph.D. degrees of education, and with a monthly income of BTk.21,000 and above.
However, this study found that many cases did not satisfy all these conditions to be included in any of the above categories. Therefore, the study assigned a score for each variable, ranging from one to three. In this process, a graduate had a probability of obtaining a maximum score of four and a minimum score of three, which was the lower social status. The resultant frequencies are added up to the scores for each variable per graduate. It was found that a graduate household received a maximum score of 9. Then, we grouped the entire range of scores into three intervals and thus distributed all the cases to those groups depending on the extent of scores obtained. The graduates who obtained a score of 3–4 were labelled as the working social class (40.3%), a score of 5-6 as middle class (45.7%), and those who scored 7 or more as the rich class of society (14.1%). This helped the study to achieve a social class status-wise frequency of the study population. Thus, the resulting proportions of Bangladeshi graduates might be comparable with other studies (Rahman et al. 2019).

2.2. Findings

Based on the objectives of this study, the findings are displayed below in six sections: The first section presents the ELP-linked impact levels of language use, while the second section presents the correlations among the ELP-linked impacts and language use in a social context. The third, fourth, and fifth sections show mean differences in cultural erosion (CE), threat to local language (TLL), and local language pollution (LLP) in terms of the respondents’ education qualifications, income levels, and living place status. The final section displays the relationships between the ELP-linked impacts and various social class groups of graduates, such as the lower, middle, and rich classes.

2.3. Level of ELP-Linked Impacts

In terms of the ELP-linked impacts, such as cultural erosion, a threat to the local language, and pollution of the local language, the perception of university graduates was collected using a 4-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to understand the level of impact. The mean score of the variables was between 1–2 (a low level of challenges), while the mean score between 2–3 and 3–4 was a moderate and high level of challenges, respectively. Table 2 shows the level of ELP-linked impacts among Bangladeshi graduates.
The scores of the cultural erosion variable (M = 2.83, Std = 0.621) indicate that cultural erosion happens among Bangladeshi graduates moderately due to English language proficiency. Similarly, the scores of the threat to local language variable (M = 2.83, Std = 0.621) designate a moderate level of threat happening due to an ELP. Likewise, the scores of the polluting local language variable (M = 2.98, Std = 0.684) designate a moderate level of threat happening because of ELP. Based on the first objective, the study tried to understand the level of ELP-linked challenges among Bangladeshi university graduates in relation to language and culture, and the levels are moderately high, meaning cultural erosion, local language threat, and pollution happen among the graduates.

2.4. The Correlation among ELP-Linked Challenges and Language Use in Social Context

Before the regression analysis, we needed to find whether the studied variables were correlated or not. Pearson’s correlation has been used to check this correlation. The result (Table 3) shows that the variables, such as cultural erosion (R2 = 0.47, p = 0.001), threat to local language (R2 = 0.48, p = 0.001), polluting local language (R2 = 0.40, p = 0.001), are significantly correlated to each other. This means that these data can be used for further regression analyses to find relationships among the variables.
According to the second objective, Table 3 showcases the correlation between ELP-linked challenges and language use in the social context. In addition, this significant correlation between the ELP-linked challenges and language use in the social context represents cultural erosion, language threat, and pollution being significantly correlated to language use in society.

2.5. Mean Differences of CE, TLL, and PLL in Terms of Respondents’ Qualification

As these data were normally distributed, and the independent variable had more than two groups, the ANOVA test was performed to find the mean differences in CE, TLL, and PLL with respect to the respondents’ qualifications (bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D. degree).
In Table 4, the ANOVA results revealed no statistically significant difference in CE between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 2, within group df = 367) = [F = 0.159, p = 0.853]). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found in TLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 2, within group df = 367) = [F = 0.71, p = 0.492]). However, a statistically significant difference in PLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 2, within group df = 367) = [F = 4.124, p = 0.017]) was found. This means that the pollution of local languages varies depending on the education qualifications. As per the third objective, Table 4 displays the ANOVA of differences in the education qualifications group of graduates.

2.6. Mean Differences of CE, LLT, and PLL in Terms of Respondents’ Incomes

In Table 5, the ANOVA results revealed statistically significant differences in CE between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 3, within group df = 366) = [F = 2.191, p = 0.089]). Similarly, statistically significant differences were found in TLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 3, within group df = 366) = [F = 3.623, p = 0.013]). Moreover, a statistically significant difference in PLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 3, within group df = 366) = [F = 5.606, p = 0.001]) was found. This means that cultural erosion, threat, and pollution of local languages vary with the income level. Based on the fourth objective, Table 5 demonstrates the ANOVA of differences in the income level group of Bangladeshi graduates.

2.7. Mean Differences of CE, LLT, and PLL in Terms of Respondents’ Living Places

In Table 6, the ANOVA results revealed statistically significant differences in CE between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 4, within group df = 365) = [F = 3.01, p = 0.018]). Similarly, statistically significant differences were found in TLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 4, within group df = 365) = [F = 2.537, p = 0.04]). Moreover, no statistically significant difference in PLL between at least two groups (F (between groups df = 4, within group df = 365) = [F = 1.461, p = 0.213]) was found. This means that the cultural erosion and threat of local languages vary in living places. According to the fifth objective of the study, Table 6 shows the ANOVA of differences in the living place group of Bangladeshi graduates.

2.8. The Relationship of ELP-Linked Challenges in Society among Rich, Middle, and Lower Classes

Table 7 presents the results of the multivariate regression analysis in three linear regression equations applied to measure the association between the dependent and independent variables. Three models were considered for the language used in society variable on different factors of ELP and the social class among Bangladeshi graduates, such as the rich, middle and working classes as Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3, respectively.
Multicollinearity arose among the independent variables of the models because of the high correlation coefficients among the rich-class, middle-class, and working-class variables. Therefore, separate models were run for each social class separately with the ELP-linked challenges, but the results did not change.
Model 1 shows the significant relationship between social class and ELP-linked challenges. The results indicate that ELP significantly but negatively was related to the social class context (B = 0.073, p ≤ 0.001). The R2 value shows that the model, as a whole, is significant (R2 = 0.136, p = 0.001), which explains 13.6% variances in the social class context with ELP-linked challenges. Model 2 also shows a significant relationship between social class and ELP-linked challenges. The B value, both for the rich and working classes, indicates no significant relationships with ELP challenges, though the R value shows that the model, as a whole, is significant (R2 = 0.136, p = 0.001), which explains 13.6% variances in the social class with ELP-linked challenges. No differences in R2 values between Models 1 and 2 were found. Model 3 also shows a significant relationship between social class and ELP-linked challenges, while the rich and working classes were found to have no significant relationships with ELP (B = 0.085, p = 0.721; B = 0.159, p ≤ 0.382), respectively. The R2 value slightly raises in Model 3, which is 0.138. This means that all three predictors of social context (rich, middle, and working classes) accounted for 13.8% of the variance in the ELP-linked challenges. Furthermore, the middle-class group of graduates and ELP-linked challenges are confounded. This means that this class of graduates cannot be described. Thus, the final model states that:
ELP-linked challenges = 5.623 + 0.159 (Working class) + 0.085 (Rich Class)
The equation shows the working class as the stronger predictor of ELP-linked challenges, though it is not significant. This means that lower-class groups are having more challenges related to ELP, while richer-class challenges are almost half of those of the working class. As a whole, the ELP-linked challenges become hindrances to graduates in the Bangladeshi real-life context.

3. Discussion

This study’s findings are in line with other research literature, which is discussed in this section regarding English language use in different social contexts of Bangladesh because social class is a combination of different groups of graduates based on levels of education, living, and income among the working, middle and rich classes. This study found that English language use among friends, families, and societies enhances language jeopardy and cultural integrations in the social context of Bangladeshi graduates. Furthermore, language use is gradually discussed in the below sections.

3.1. Language Practice in the Education Group of Graduates

The results of this study are incongruent with existing research literature (Hamid 2016; Islam et al. 2022a; van Driem 2007), which indicates that the different groups of graduates use different languages in different contexts. The needs and use of languages for bachelor’s degree holders are different from master’s degree holders, while doctorate degree holders are totally different from others, and the cultural erosion among the education group of graduates is not significant in the quantitative findings. In contrast, the literature indicates cultural erosions are occurring with English language use in the workplace, with friends, with families, and in a social context (Islam et al. 2022b). Moreover, the study’s results also indicate that local languages are under threat due to excessive use of the English language; similarly, the research literature also indicates that local languages are under threat in the Indian subcontinent (van Driem 2007). Furthermore, local language pollution is significantly happening due to the practice of the English language in the career-building and social contexts of Bangladesh. This pollution happens among this group of graduates, and this is significantly indicated by the findings. Bachelor’s degree holders are more aggressive in language pollution than master’s and doctorate degree holders, and this finding is congruent with the research literature that indicates how English language use enhances cultural erosions, local language threats, and pollution multidimensionally (Islam et al. 2022b).

3.2. Language Practice in the Income Group of Graduates

This study’s results are compatible with the research literature (Erling et al. 2012; Hossain 2011; Maltby et al. 2016; Rahman et al. 2021b), which indicates that income varies lifestyle, living, and language use differently. Low-income graduates are now aware of language use because they are more concerned about increasing their income, while the middle-income group is more focused on language use because they use the English language as a tool for success and earning more money (Maltby et al. 2016). Furthermore, the high-income group of graduates are used to using the English language in their daily lives. Therefore, the threat to local language and polluting local language variables are strongly significant because the respondents’ opinions are close to each other or not expanded, while cultural erosion is also significant. The modern settings of local language use in Bangladesh are influenced by economic and earning status in society (Erling et al. 2012). Similarly, the existing research literature presents that language use differs based on income and social status (Rahman et al. 2021a).

3.3. Language Practice in Living Place Group of Graduates

The language used varies according to the social group of Bangladeshi graduates; based on the living place, the graduates use different languages sophisticated urban people emphasise English language use, while semi-urban people use a mixed language of English and Bengali, which is congruent with the research literature (Islam et al. 2022b; Rahman 2005). On the other hand, in the slum area, people are focused on the local language (Amin 2017). Firstly, the research literature and the study’s findings simultaneously indicate that sophisticated urban living people are more focused on westernisation, the English language, and culture, which resulted in their sending children to English language medium institutes to maintain their status (Islam et al. 2022b; Ruby 2012). They use the English language at home in regular family conversations instead of the local language, Bengali. Consequently, interest in using the local language, Bangla, is gradually decreasing among this group of graduates (Islam et al. 2022b). Secondly, the semi-urban living graduates are mostly focused on mixed languages because they hold the local language, Bangla, but they want to be modern, which is also congruent with the literature. They try to improve the language of sophisticated urban people, which is increased through the language used by friends, families, and social contexts. Mixed language is pollution of the local language, which is mostly enhanced through this group of graduates. Finally, in the slum area, people are not concerned about language use in a daily life context, but they focus on the basic needs of life. They use their mother language, Bengali, with friends, families, and society, and the finding also corresponds with the results of past studies. However, the language used varies among graduates based on their living places, but language supremacy and cultural integration are enhanced through urban sophistication and semi-urban people in Bangladesh (Islam et al. 2022b).

3.4. Language Practice in the Working-Class Group of Graduates

The findings of this study are consistent with the results of past studies (Dutta and Smita 2020; Roy et al. 2020; Sarker et al. 2019), which indicate that working-class graduates are mostly focused on living and surviving in a developing society, resulting in not being concerned about language. They use language to enhance daily conversation. This is why the study finds a positive relationship between ELP-linked challenges and language use in a social context. According to the social pattern of Bangladesh, working-class people rarely continue studying until graduation (Sarker et al. 2019). Very few people can manage completion to graduation due to many issues, including the economic crisis (Dutta and Smita 2020). Most graduates are from government-owned universities and colleges due to their lower costs (Hossain et al. 2019). However, the findings of this study are compatible with the research literature, such as Mohanlal and Sharada (2004), who found that working-class graduates are used to the local language, which is being used in family, and social speaking contexts, but they use English as necessary.

3.5. Language Practice in the Middle-Class Group of Graduates

The findings of this study are consistent with the literature (Akareem and Hossain 2012; Hijazi and Naqvi 2006; Islam et al. 2022b), which indicates that the middle-class group of Bangladeshi graduates is confounded because the study cannot determine the relationship between language use and ELP-linked challenges. However, past studies designate that this group of graduates manages to use both languages in social settings due to their necessity to adjust to the upper-class group of graduates (Akareem and Hossain 2012). In Bangladesh, only this group of graduates must manage their relationships among both groups of graduates in terms of friends, families, and society (Hijazi and Naqvi 2006). Moreover, the findings of this study also present that when the middle class tries to cope with the working class, they use their local language and culture, while when they try to adjust to the upper class, they use the English language and culture. The literature suggests that a family’s speaking language is a mixed approach due to assorted life patterns with lower and richer classes (Islam et al. 2022b).

3.6. Language Practice in the Rich-Class Group of Graduates

The richer class people are primarily focused on the English language and culture in Bangladesh due to the demand for life patterns, and the findings are also compatible with the research literature (Islam et al. 2022b; Mousumi and Kusakabe 2017; Rumnaz Imam 2005). They use the English language in their day-to-day activities, which has been normalised to the point that this group is not significantly impacted by the ELP issues and challenges in the social context. Similarly, the literature presents a group of people who travel worldwide due to international business requirements and many more necessities (Kabeer 2004). The wealthy class is considered a global people in Bangladesh because they have to maintain their lifestyle in a foreign environment (Kabeer 2004). They send children to English language medium instructed institutions to develop their English skills; sometimes, they send them overseas for higher education (Mousumi and Kusakabe 2017; Rumnaz Imam 2005). Moreover, the findings indicate that foreign-based graduates migrate their foreign culture to the local Bangladeshi culture, where most of the family language of this class of graduates is English, maintaining their foreign culture at home, resulting in mixed local culture; this finding is also congruent with the results of past studies (Islam et al. 2022b). As practices are limited among them, it does not have an overall influence on society.

3.7. Limitation

Multiple categories of graduates exist in rural and urban areas of Bangladesh, such as Bengali, English, and Arabic medium-instructed graduates, but this study could not focus on Arabic medium-instructed or Islamic education-based graduates because of the different categories among the Islamic-based graduates. Moreover, this study was conducted using a quantitative approach; furthermore, it could be more in-depth when using a qualitative approach where the respondents have more opportunities to express their opinions, ideas, views, and experiences. In addition, this study was located in the capital city, but it can be applied to sub-urban and rural contexts too, to obtain rural perspectives of language use among the graduates. In addition, this study was presented in a Bangladeshi context, so it cannot be generalised to a world context.

4. Conclusions

This study designates a moderate threat of language loss and pollution in the daily life of graduates, while a significant correlation exists between the ELP-linked challenges (local language threat and pollution) and language use in the social context of Bangladesh. Moreover, English language use significantly hampers the local language use, which varies based on the education qualifications of the graduates meaning all graduates are not equally responsible for the language threats and pollution. The multivariate regression analysis also showed that language use differs among wealthy, middle, and working-class graduates. This study is eye-opening to researchers of the Bangladesh and Indian subcontinents because of this region’s socioeconomic background and linguistic phenomenon. This study provides a specific research context for researchers and academics with the primary limitation of respondents (Islamic education-based graduates). Moreover, this study was conducted using a quantitative approach. At the same time, it could be more in-depth by using a qualitative approach where the respondents have more opportunities to express their opinions, ideas, views, and experiences. Nevertheless, this study shows a gap in specific research scopes for future research regarding the socioeconomic context and language use among Islamic education-based graduates. This study enhances an awareness of language use among friends, families, and societies. Also, this study is essential for generating consciousness among Bangladeshi graduates. They are fond of the English language so as to cope with their community’s demands, resulting in many graduates being extremely focused on learning English, resulting in local languages becoming mixed with the English language and losing the local language’s purity. However, this study suggests being aware of the language used by friends, families, and societies so as to avoid a decline in local language users and maintain the root language identity in Bangladesh.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.I.; Data curation, M.T.I.; Formal analysis, M.T.I.; Investigation, M.T.I.; Methodology, M.T.I.; Software, M.T.I.; Supervision, S.R., K.E.H. and M.K.H.; Validation, S.R. and K.E.H.; Writing original draft, M.T.I.; Writing review and editing, K.E.H. and M.K.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the Institute for Advanced Research Publication Grant of United International University, Madani Avenue, 1212, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Ref No.: IAR-2024-Pub-018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy issues.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with the data collection, analyses, or interpretation of data in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Afrin, Sadia, and Lawrence Baines. 2020. Trajectories of language, culture, and geography in postcolonial Bangladesh. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 917–38. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akareem, Husain Sadiul, and Syed Shahadat Hossain. 2012. Perception of education quality in private universities of Bangladesh: A study from students’ perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22: 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amin, Md. 2018. Learning English Language in Home Environment: A Study. Angloamericanae Journal 3: 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amin, Md Al. 2017. Charting the River: A Case Study of English Language Teaching in Bangladesh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. [Google Scholar]
  5. Amit, Sajid, Lumbini Barua, and Abdulla-Al Kafy. 2021. Countering violent extremism using social media and preventing implementable strategies for Bangladesh. Heliyon 7: e07121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ara, Rowshon. 2020. A Foreign Language or the Second Language: The Future of English in Bangladesh. International Journal of Language Education 4: 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Awal, Abdul. 2022. English and sustainable languages: Collective Consciousness in Bangladesh. Polish Journal of English Studies 8: 123–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bacha, Miqn Shah Kumar, Bakht Sheema Bibi, and Mehrunnisa M. Yunus. 2021. Using English as a lingua franca in Pakistan: Influences and implications in English Language Teaching (ELT). Asian ESP Journal 17: 155–75. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bakeer, Aida M. 2018. Effects of information and communication technology and social media in developing students’ writing skill: A case of Al-Quds Open University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 8: 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blackledge, Adrian. 1999. Language, literacy and social justice: The experiences of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham, UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20: 179–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chambers, Jack. 2002. Studying language variation: An informal epistemology. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., vol. 11, p. 3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chowdhury, Raqib, and Ariful Haq Kabir. 2014. Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Multilingual Education 4: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Deumert, Ana, Anne Storch, and Nick Shepherd. 2021. Colonial and Decolonial Linguistics: Knowledges and Epistemes. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dutta, Sushmita, and Marzia Khatun Smita. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on tertiary education in Bangladesh: Students’ perspectives. Open Journal of Social Sciences 8: 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Erling, Elizabeth, Philip Seargeant, Michael Solly, Qumril Hasan Chowdhury, and Sayeedur Rahman. 2012. Attitudes to English as a Language for International Development in Rural Bangladesh. London: British Council. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hamid, M. Obidul. 2011. Socio-economic Characteristics and English Language Achievement in Rural Bangladesh. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology 8: 31–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamid, M. Obidul. 2016. The linguistic market for English in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning 17: 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hamid, M. Obidul, and Abdur Rahman. 2019. Language in education policy in Bangladesh: A neoliberal turn? In The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 382–95. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hamid, M. Obidul, and Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. 2011. English and socio-economic disadvantage: Learner voices from rural Bangladesh. Language Learning Journal 39: 201–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hijazi, Syed Tahir, and S. M. M. Naqvi. 2006. FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS’PERFORMANCE. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology 3: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hossain, Md Motaher. 2011. Consumption in Rural Bangladesh: Households, Lifestyles, and Identities. Master’s dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hossain, Mohammad Emdad, Mohammad Namul Hoq, Israth Sultana, Rakibul Islam, and Md Hassan. 2019. Determinants of Students Satisfaction at Higher Educational Institution in Bangladesh: Evidence from Private and Public Universities. Malaysian Online Journal of Education 3: 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hossain, Tollefson, and James W Tollefson. 2017. Language policy in education in Bangladesh. In Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. London: Routledge, pp. 241–59. [Google Scholar]
  24. Islam, Md. Tarikul, Selvajothi Ramalingam, and Kazi Enamul Hoque. 2022a. English Language Proficiency Hegemony in Career Building among Diverse Groups of Bangladeshi Graduates. Journal of English 11: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Islam, Md. Tarikul, Selvajothi Ramalingam, and Kazi Enamul Hoque. 2022b. Supremacy of English Language Proficiency: Identity Transmission and Transgression among Bangladeshi Graduates. Issues in Language Studies 11: 129–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jahan, Iffat, and M. Obaidul Hamid. 2019. English as a medium of instruction and the discursive construction of elite identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 23: 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kabeer, Naila. 2004. Globalization, labor standards, and women’s rights: Dilemmas of collective (in) action in an interdependent world. Feminist Economics 10: 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kabir, Ariful H., and Raqib Chowdhury. 2021. The Privatisation of Higher Education in Postcolonial Bangladesh: The Politics of Intervention and Control. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kachru, Yamuna. 2017. Hindiurdu. In The World’s Major Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 415–32. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kamruzzaman, M., and M. A. Hakim. 2016. Socio-economic status of slum dwellers: An empirical study on the capital city of Bangladesh. American Journal of Business and Society 1: 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karim, Abdul, Mohammad Kamarul Kabilan, Zohur Ahmed, Liza Reshmin, and Mosiur Mohammad Rahman. 2021. The Medium of Instruction in Bangladeshi Higher Education Institutions: Bangla, English, or Both? Journal of Language, Identity & Education 22: 32–46. [Google Scholar]
  32. Khan, Muhammd Hasan, and Shaila Sultana. 2020. A critical exploration of private university students’ approach towards English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh. In The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh. London: Routledge, pp. 284–97. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kırkgöz, Yasemin. 2019. Investigating the growth of English-medium higher education in Turkey and the Middle East region. In Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Foreign Language Education. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  34. Linn, Andrew, Prithvi Shrestha, Anastasiya Bezborodova, and Anna Kristina Hultgren. 2021. Current Practice in English-Medium Education in Higher Education: Case Studies from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. London: British Council. [Google Scholar]
  35. Maltby, Hendrika J., Joy M. de Vries-Erich, and Karen Lund. 2016. Being the stranger: Comparing study abroad experiences of nursing students in low and high income countries through hermeneutical phenomenology. Nurse Education Today 45: 114–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Martín, Jose Antonio Rodriguez, Molina Maria del Mar Holgado, and Jose Antonio Salinas Fernández. 2015. An assessment of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 3 in least developed countries of Asia. Applied Research in Quality of Life 10: 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mohanlal, Sam, and B. A. Sharada. 2004. A linguistic study of English language curriculum at the secondary level in Bangladesh—A communicative approach to curriculum development. Language Acquisition 47: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mousumi, Manjuma Akhtar, and Tatsuya Kusakabe. 2017. The dynamics of supply and demand chain of English-medium schools in Bangladesh. Globalisation, Societies and Education 15: 679–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mousumi, Manjuma Akhtar, and Tatsuya Kusakabe. 2021. School education system in Bangladesh. In Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 443–77. [Google Scholar]
  40. Neveu, Erik. 2018. Bourdieu’s capital (s). In The Oxford Handbook of Pierre Bourdieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 347–74. [Google Scholar]
  41. Niculescu, Brandusa-Oana, Georgeta Obilişteanu, and Isabela Aanda Dragomir. 2019. Contribution of Foreign Languages to Building the Professional Career of the Land Forces Academy Cadets. Land Forces Academy Review 24: 213–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Qazi, M. Habib, Choudhary Z. Javid, and Inayat Ullah. 2022. Representation of indigenous languages employing a religious screen for the discursive construction of students’ postcolonial national identities: A curious case of ‘internal colonisation’ and ‘cultural invasion’ in Pakistani schools. British Educational Research Journal 49: 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rafi, Abu Saleh Mohammad, and Anne-Marie Morgan. 2022. Linguistic ecology of Bangladeshi higher education: A translanguaging perspective. Teaching in Higher Education 27: 512–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rahman, Abu Rashed Md Mahbuber, Ilyana Jalaluddin, Zalina Mohd Kasim, and Ramiza Darmi. 2021a. Aliya madrasah students’ motivation for learning English in Bangladesh. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 17: 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rahman, Md. Mijanur. 2020. Linguistic diversity and social justice in Bangladesh: A socio-historical and language ideological perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 41: 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rahman, Mohammad Mosiur, and Ambigapathy Pandian. 2018. A critical investigation of English language teaching in Bangladesh: Unfulfilled expectations after two decades of communicative language teaching. English Today 34: 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rahman, Mohammad Mosiur, and Manjet Kaur Meher Singh. 2020. Language ideology of English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study from Bangladesh. English Today 36: 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rahman, Mohammad Mosiur, Md. Shaiful Islam, Abdul Karim, Takad Ahmed Chowdhury, Muhammad Mushfiqur Rahman, Prodhan Mahbub Ibna Seraj, and Manjet Kaur Meher Singh. 2019. English language teaching in Bangladesh today: Issues, outcomes and implications. Language Testing in Asia 9: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rahman, Mohammad Mosiur, Md. Shaiful Islam, and Manjet Kaur Meher Singh. 2021b. English medium instruction: Beliefs and attitudes of university lecturers in Bangladesh and Malaysia. Issues in Educational Research 31: 13–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rahman, Sayeedur. 2005. Orientations and motivation in English language learning: A study of Bangladeshi students at undergraduate level. Asian EFL Journal 7: 29–55. [Google Scholar]
  51. Roshid, M. Moninoor. 2018. English, empowerment and economic development: A study in an international business. In Engaging in Educational Research. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 315–31. [Google Scholar]
  52. Roy, Sudipta, Samia Huq, and Aisha Binte Abdur Rob. 2020. Faith and education in Bangladesh: A review of the contemporary landscape and challenges. International Journal of Educational Development 79: 102290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ruby, Mahera. 2012. The role of a grandmother in maintaining Bangla with her granddaughter in East London. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33: 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rumnaz Imam, Syeda. 2005. English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education 41: 471–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sarker, Md Narul Islam, Min Wu, and Md Altab Hossin. 2019. Economic effect of school dropout in Bangladesh. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 9: 136–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schuller, Tom, John Preston, Cathie Hammond, Angela Brassett-Grundy, and John Bynner. 2004. The Benefits of Learning: The Impact of Education on Health, Family Life and Social Capital. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shahen, Abu, Bellal Hossain, Bokul Hossain, and Nushrat Johan. 2019. Globalization and Bangladesh: An analysis from cultural perspective. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 25: 32–41. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sultana, Shaila. 2022. Young professional Bangladeshi women with rebel bones: Trans-approaches to language and identity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Swann, Joan. 2019. Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. Swazan, Ishtehar Sharif, and Debanjan Das. 2022. Bangladesh’s Emergence as a Ready-Made Garment Export Leader: An Examination of the Competitive Advantages of the Garment Industry. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness 17: 162–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. van Driem, George. 2007. Endangered languages of South Asia. In Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 303–41. [Google Scholar]
  62. Veitch, Ann. 2021. English in Higher Education–English Medium Part 2: A British Council Perspective. London: British Council. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yin, Hailong, Md Sahidul Islam, and Mengdie Ju. 2021. Urban river pollution in the densely populated city of Dhaka, Bangladesh: Big picture and rehabilitation experience from other developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 321: 129040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Summary of the respondents with the percentage.
Table 1. Summary of the respondents with the percentage.
RespondentsNumber (%)
Education Level
Bachelor239 (64.6%)
Master123 (33.2%)
Ph.D.8 (2.2%)
Income
Below BDT 10,000145 (38.9%)
BDT 10,001–20,000105 (28.6%)
BDT 20,001–50,00090 (24.1%)
BDT 50,001–Above30 (8.4%)
Living place
Non-slum76 (20.5%)
Urban city268 (72.5%)
Urban sophisticated26 (7%)
Total370 (100%)
Table 2. Level of ELP-linked impacts among Bangladeshi graduates.
Table 2. Level of ELP-linked impacts among Bangladeshi graduates.
ELP-Linked ChallengesMinMax%MeanStd. Level
Cultural Erosion1468.102.830.621Moderate
Threats to Local Language1473.002.960.654Moderate
Polluting Local Language1473.502.980.684Moderate
Table 3. Correlations between ELP-linked challenges and language use in the social context.
Table 3. Correlations between ELP-linked challenges and language use in the social context.
ELP-Linked ChallengesR2p-Value
Cultural Erosion0.47 0.001 **
Threat to Local Language0.48 0.001 **
Polluting Local Language0.40 0.001 **
N = 370; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. ANOVA of differences in education qualifications group of graduates.
Table 4. ANOVA of differences in education qualifications group of graduates.
ELP-Linked Challenges Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Cultural ErosionBetween Groups0.12320.0620.1590.853
Within Groups142.153670.387
Total142.273369
Threat to Local LanguageBetween Groups0.60820.3040.710.492
Within Groups157.1523670.428
Total157.76369
Polluting Local LanguageBetween Groups3.821.94.1240.017 *
Within Groups169.0523670.461
Total172.852369
N = 370; * p < 0.05.
Table 5. ANOVA of differences in income level group of Bangladeshi graduates.
Table 5. ANOVA of differences in income level group of Bangladeshi graduates.
ELP-Linked Challenges Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Cultural ErosionBetween Groups2.5130.8372.1910.089 *
Within Groups139.7633660.382
Total142.273369
Threat to Local LanguageBetween Groups4.54931.5163.6230.013 **
Within Groups153.213660.419
Total157.76369
Polluting Local LanguageBetween Groups7.59432.5315.6060.001 **
Within Groups165.2583660.452
Total172.852369
N = 370; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table 6. ANOVA of differences in living place group of Bangladeshi graduates.
Table 6. ANOVA of differences in living place group of Bangladeshi graduates.
ELP-Linked Challenges Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Cultural ErosionBetween Groups4.54341.1363.010.018 *
Within Groups137.733650.377
Total142.273369
Threat to Local LanguageBetween Groups4.26741.0672.5370.04 *
Within Groups153.4923650.421
Total157.76369
Polluting Local LanguageBetween Groups2.72440.6811.4610.213
Within Groups170.1283650.466
Total172.852369
N = 370; * p < 0.05.
Table 7. The relationship between ELP and social classes, such as rich, middle, and working classes.
Table 7. The relationship between ELP and social classes, such as rich, middle, and working classes.
Co-VariatesModel 1Model 2Model 3
Bp-ValueBp-ValueBp-Value
Social Context *−0.073<0.001
Constant5.733<0.001
Model R-squared0.136
Social Context * −0.073<0.001
Rich class 0.0040.987
Constant 5.732<0.001
Model R-squared 0.136
Social context * −0.072<0.001
Rich class 0.0850.721
Lower class 0.1590.382
Constant 5.623<0.001
Model R-squared 0.138
Note: * p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Islam, M.T.; Hasan, M.K.; Ramalingam, S.; Hoque, K.E. Impact of English Language Proficiency on Local Language Use among Bangladeshi Graduates. Languages 2024, 9, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9040134

AMA Style

Islam MT, Hasan MK, Ramalingam S, Hoque KE. Impact of English Language Proficiency on Local Language Use among Bangladeshi Graduates. Languages. 2024; 9(4):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9040134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Islam, Md Tarikul, Md. Kamrul Hasan, Selvajothi Ramalingam, and Kazi Enamul Hoque. 2024. "Impact of English Language Proficiency on Local Language Use among Bangladeshi Graduates" Languages 9, no. 4: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9040134

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop